WIZZO83 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 As most of you know I am not the biggest Simon Corney fan and I have spent some money getting my hands on a few reports that are in the public domain, I would appreciate your time in reading some interesting things I have found out..... This is all factual information from either purchasing detailed company information (www.companysearchesmadesimple.com) or oldham.gov.uk Firstly - Oldham Athletic 2004 Association Football Club Limited At present OAFC has liabilities of over £6m, this has risen over the last couple of years and the net asset of the club / company is now £-5,416,000 yes thats a minus! The New Stand According to the planning application of the new stand the certificate of ownership is in the name of Brass Bank Ltd which is owned 50/50 by Gazal and Blitz - Link below and not Oldham Athletic 2004 Association Football Club Limited http://planningpa.oldham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/C23768B4BC81F015DCDF277728F11D75/pdf/PA_333100_12-ApplicationFormNoPersonalData22172500000.pdf-1456370.pdf last page Simon Corney When reading the directorship history of Simon Corney it lists he is a director of PCW Developments PCW Developments This business was set up Sept 2009 and at present has has 3 shareholders, Brass Bank Ltd (15 shares and owned by Gazal and Blitz) and 5 shares owned by Paul and Christine Whitehead SC, SB and DG were all appointed to the board of PCW on 21/02/11 In their last accounts has assets of over a £1m pounds Contractor of New Stand On the 2nd December 2013 it was announced that Holroy Developments had been selected to be the contractor for the stand, 2 of the Holroy directors are Paul and Christine Whitehead who share the board room at PCW Developments with SC, SB and DG..... Anyway I just thought I would bring this public information to the attention of OAFC fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Not much of this is news... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 It's interesting to have the facts laid down, but like Pete said I think we all knew this anyway to a large extent. Thanks for putting in the effort though Wizz. All I would say is I do trust Paul, he's clearly got a self interest here but I would say he's Latics to the core also, and whilst maybe in hindsight we may say he did not make the best of decisions, we all make mistakes, I would never expect them to have been malicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIZZO83 Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 not accusing anyone of anything just putting the information i have found in front of the majority, people can read in to this whatever they think. big question is why is the stand not in the club name?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 All this has been mentioned on here before. The PCW Developments project is the joint venture housing development behind the Chaddy End, which also involves Ian Hill (Ryder & Dutton). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIZZO83 Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 I couldnt find anything anywhere on PCW Developments Why cant Simon explain how exactly how the new stand will benefit the football club and not just the owners Brass Bank Ltd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisbrogan Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 The balance sheet you reference is probably from 2011. Not saying I know any current figures (and given most that have an interest in such things know of the loan, the picture probably/ possibly hasn't altered that much) but the data used is old. Given that, it could be argued that it's pleasing that we're still here and with a stand now going up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 not accusing anyone of anything just putting the information i have found in front of the majority, people can read in to this whatever they think. big question is why is the stand not in the club name?? As Brassbank own the stadium and lease it to OAFC 2004, it would perhaps make sense for this to be treated in the same manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SholverBlue Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 not accusing anyone of anything just putting the information i have found in front of the majority, people can read in to this whatever they think. big question is why is the stand not in the club name?? Because football won't be its chief means of income IE TTA recouping losses. It has been said, this is already known but I bet most people aren't fully aware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I see but I don't know what I'm looking at. Help me out. Are there any risks associated with these business arrangements that I'm not gauging? Is there anything shady and/or unorthodox about those business arrangements? I'm really far behind on this because it's all a bit private sector for my tastes, with no trade union involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) Not sure what the issue is. Few people are going to want the stand without the club, none are going to want the club without the stand. If Brassbank/developers go bust, the stand can be seized to pay creditors but the club can't. If the club goes bust, the stand is ringfenced and it limits their losses. As far as I'm aware it's not uncommon for plcs to have a number of subsidiaries to ring fence assets/sections of the business and protect them if things go wrong elsewhere. Latics are not a plc and so its owners have an interest in these other projects. One day somebody may come along, buy Latics and acquire the stand from Brassbank as a connected transaction (or vice versa). As for giving business partners contracts, well that's hardly rare and as Ackey says, it's probably better to have someone who bleeds blue steering that particular ship. There's pros and cons either way. None of it is news. Edited April 1, 2014 by jsslatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 So, the key question is which revenues from the new stand will be paid to OAFC and which to Brassbank? SC & BO have often said that the new stand will give 7 day income, but if the club only get the match day revenue (and that's assuming they get ALL of it) then they are just spreading the exisiting gate receipts across 4 stands instead of 3. Equally, who gets the car parking money? I've been told that it may be brassbank that gets this money, but it is presented to the car park users as if it's OAFC that gets the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) RE the £1m in PCW, that would be ther to start paying to get the stand erected, it would be more worrying if there was no money there. And, of course, some people will assume that those stand to gain a vast profit on a company building this, but of course those self same people would also be liable for any debt/costs. In many ways it makes sense to ring fence the liaibilities. Nowithstanding, if Simon Blitz was going to pull the plug, common sense dictates that it is far morelikely through the 5 or so years of the deepest recession in history than coming toward the end of it. Of course, you never know, but the odds would be much higher now than 2008. And as has been pointed out, it would be relatively easy compared to some clubs (eg Coventry) to re-combine all aspects of a stadium. This may happen once the redevelopment is complete. Edited April 1, 2014 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 RE the £1m in PCW, that would be ther to start paying to get the stand erected, it would be more worrying if there was no money there. And, of course, some people will assume that those stand to gain a vast profit on a company building this, but of course those self same people would also be liable for any debt/costs. In many ways it makes sense to ring fence the liaibilities. Nowithstanding, if Simon Blitz was going to pull the plug, common sense dictates that it is far morelikely through the 5 or so years of the deepest recession in history than coming toward the end of it. Of course, you never know, but the odds would be much higher now than 2008. And as has been pointed out, it would be relatively easy compared to some clubs (eg Coventry) to re-combine all aspects. This may happen once the redevelopment is complete. So, everbody - big thanks to Wizzo for reassuring us that everyone involved with the new stand and the club in general is engaging in sensible, standard business practices in all departments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 This is all exactly as it ever was. If the owners of the various assets decide to maximize their cash they can do so regardless. I prefer not to lose sleep over something so far beyond my control Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I've stayed off OWTB since the turn of the year as I felt it was the correct thing to do bearing in mind the Contract my Company has for the construction of the North Stand. However tonight I received a phone call informing me that something was about to be posted about me. All this information is already being in the public domain However, there are a number of factually incorrect comments made in the opening post. The main 1 relates to to the details on the planning application. For clarity (and I have doubled checked this tonight on the planning portal) the planning application is in the name of Oldham Athletic AFC and was submitted by their Agent the Frank Whittle Partnership. In law, any person or company with an interest in the land has to be served with a notice of the planning application. Section 25 of the application form contains a certificate where the applicant confirms that they have served the relevant notice on any person who has an interest in the land. At section 25, Brassbank are noted as having been served. Now It is well documented that Brassbank bought the stadium from OMBC in 2004 and the club enjoy the benefit of a Lease on the stadium. Therefore in law the club, as applicant, are obliged to serve notice on Brasbank. It really is that simple. If you want to check the planning application number is PA/333100/12. Secondly The names listed as Directors of Holroy Developments is incorrect. I wont bore you with the details as the information is freely available on the internet. Anyway, I believe that this thread has been started because I questioned certain comments on a social media site yesterday and asked for factual backup with evidence in black & white. To date there has been no response. In the circumstances, this will be my only post on the matter. I am sure my time will be much better served ensuring the speedy completion of the North Stand on behalf of our Football club and it's future and most importantly our clubs loyal fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Thanks all for clearing that up. There's probably a German compound verb for getting a little over-excited and paranoid about your ability to find information on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshOWTB Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I can't open the links but if the certificate of ownership is the last (or second to last page) of the planning application form this needs to list all those who own the land - the planning approval stays with the land and therefore you need permission from who owns the land. It doesn't mean they own the stand but they own the land it sits on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I can't open the links but if the certificate of ownership is the last (or second to last page) of the planning application form this needs to list all those who own the land - the planning approval stays with the land and therefore you need permission from who owns the land. It doesn't mean they own the stand but they own the land it sits on. So who owns the stand then? By the way don't say 'well I assume........' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 As most of you know I am not the biggest Simon Corney fan and I have spent some money getting my hands on a few reports that are in the public domain, I would appreciate your time in reading some interesting things I have found out..... Being kind of fast and loose with the word 'interesting' there. It's a nice weather out today, y'know. Get some fresh air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) All this has been mentioned on here before. The PCW Developments project is the joint venture housing development behind the Chaddy End, which also involves Ian Hill (Ryder & Dutton).As far as I know there is no legal status in English commercial law for a 'joint venture' its usually two businesses (or companies) trying to maximise the profits achieved by both of them - or by one of them! Edited April 1, 2014 by ChaddySmoker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshOWTB Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 So who owns the stand then? By the way don't say 'well I assume........' No idea about that. Whoevers paying for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 As far as I know there is no legal status in English commercial law for a 'joint venture' its usually two businesses (or companies) trying to maximise the profits achieved by both of them - or by one of them! There are many instances of joint ventures; the term is often used in the public sector - for example I believe that Manchester Airport (MA) is reported as a joint venture due to its ownership by all of the former GMC councils. Each owner (e.g OMBC) reports the impact of their share of MA in their own accounting returns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 No idea about that. Whoevers paying for it! So, who has paid for it and what are the revenue arrangements? It's been presented to fans as if it is, to some degree, a potential money-spinner for OAFC but if the revenue arrangements are that a number of parties outside OAFC receive the revenue, then that is something that should be transparent in my opinion. Much like the car park revenue should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.